Blame it on Cain, but don't blame it on me.

Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18–19

Maybe you have never thought about original sin. Maybe you know the term but are confused by what it actually means. Perhaps you think of it as a theological concept not important to your life. Maybe you understand it well, but are offended by it. Maybe you are somewhere in the middle or off to either sides. I think it is important for people to wrestle with and discuss theological concepts -- it helps us both to connect into the history of the church and Biblical thought, and to flesh out what we believe the Bible says to us practically in the world and the culture we live everyday. 

The theological concept of original or inherited sin comes mostly from Paul’s writings, particularly from the end of Romans 5. In a nut shell, the idea is that when Adam sinned, every person who has been born since, is born personally guilty of sin. In the post enlightenment, increasingly individualistic world that we live, this is a hard pill to swallow; “I’ll take responsibility for what I have done (for the most part) but there is no way I am responsible for something that someone else did a long, long time ago.” Original sin is a difficult concept for our western minds to grasp. I say our western minds because for the non-western church (Asia, Africa and South America) the idea of a corporate or communal responsibility for things done in the past and by others is consistent with the general way of thought. The idea of original sin, consequently is generally not given a second look, “of course I would be guilty of wrong done by an ancestor.”  

Can a theological truth be correct or incorrect based upon where you are born? The answer to that question leads to the point I want to make with this passage and this e-mail. In order for theology to be correct it needs to be correct in all contexts and cultures. There is no such thing as a Biblical understanding that makes sense in America that is impossible or incongruent in the Congo. If we have trouble with a concept, could it be  that the concept is not the problem, but rather that our understanding of the concept been unknowingly filtered through the eyes of our culture? For our purposes, broader than the idea of original sin, trust me that we are far more individually focused than the Bible imagined. 

Most of us in some ways do not have a full understanding of the communal nature of the culture of the Bible -- not because we are not educated, but because we were not raised in that culture. The Bible is set in and speaks to a far greater level of interconnectedness than does our culture. Therefore, a part of the “counter cultural” nature of the Church is learning to live more inter-connectedly and then finding ways to live that out -- modeling it to the world.

Take some time to think through the questions below, I think you will find it helpful. Consider discussing them with a friend or in your family:

How is our individualism a strength?

How is our individualism a weakness? 

How does your individualism color your reading of the Bible or your understanding of what church looks like? 

Original sin as a theological concept is important. But perhaps equally important is what it shows us about our relationship to both those who went before us and those who will come after -- and to those around us in our world today. 

Let me know if you have any thoughts or questions. 

Peace, hope and love

Doug